List policies token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that this surfaces a restricted, pre-membership view gated by an invite token — but says nothing about invalid/expired token behavior or what happens if org_id mismatches.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It could be tightened (the 'an not-yet-member' phrasing is awkward) but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a non-obvious token/org_id relationship, a single sentence leaves an agent guessing how to actually invoke it — notably which field carries the invite token. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the invocation contract is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The token is central to the description's wording, yet the description never states it is a parameter (nor where it goes — token vs. form vs. json_body), and the required org_id is never mentioned. Only the vague notion that a token is involved is conveyed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

'List policies' is a clear verb+resource, and the qualifier 'visible to a not-yet-member using their invite token' scopes it to the pre-membership invite flow. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vaultwarden_list_policies via that token context, though the sibling is never named and the grammar ('an not-yet-member') is sloppy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The invite-token framing implies when to use it (an unauthenticated/organization-invitee context rather than an authenticated member listing), but it never states an explicit alternative such as vaultwarden_list_policies or any precondition. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.